A Canadian Armed Forces CF-18 Fighter jet from 409 Squadron taxis after landing in Kuwait on Tuesday October 28, 2014. THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO, DND-MNDDND/The Canadian Press
The Oxford online dictionary defines combat as "fighting between armed forces." And it defines "armed forces" as "a country's army, navy and air force." The Islamic State isn't a country, so budding high-school debating champions may want to argue that its well-armed forces are not strictly speaking "armed forces." And if you buy all that, then the Department of National Defence is technically correct to say that the Canadian Forces are not engaging in ground combat in Iraq.
Canadians can be forgiven for believing otherwise. Revelations of a recent firefight between IS militants and soldiers from this country raise the worrisome prospect of mission creep. Is a bombing mission quietly morphing into a ground campaign?
It doesn't appear to be, actually, but DND's and the federal cabinet's obstinate refusal to use commonly accepted English terms to discuss the Iraq effort is muddying the waters. Understanding the Iraq mission shouldn't require an advanced degree in etymological analysis or Clintonian parsing.
Yes, a small number of Canadians were involved in what walks, talks and smells like ground combat. (They were in combat. On the ground. Ergo....) Yes, it's unusual. It also matters greatly that they didn't shoot first, and that DND made the incident public.
But when NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair thunders that Prime Minister Stephen Harper misled Canadians last September when he said troops "are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat" he isn't altogether wrong.
Military advisers are plainly working alongside Iraqi forces in combat circumstances. Surely having personnel on the front lines to co-ordinate tactical air strikes – to make sure bombs fall where they are aimed – is both responsible and consistent with Mr. Harper's stated goal: to "advise and assist" Iraqis.
It's plausible this was always part of the plan, although it would be an easier conclusion to reach if more of the opacity shrouding the mission were dispelled. It's perfectly legitimate to ask questions, and it's not helpful to swaddle the answers in hyperbole. The government thought it right to commit to a limited bombing and training mission in Iraq, and we agreed. It should be honest about what the mission's limits are, and are not.